Sarkus "corrects" a moderator and then insults him

[Sarkus]

Moderator note: This thread was split off from the following thread:

Ms Rowling: insightful critic of gender policy or myopic [insult]

There you go. Have at it. I will start with a middle position, along the Noam Chomsky lines of: we should be able to have a calm chat about these matters, and no one should have their free speech rights constrained as we find our way on such complex matters of human identity. Nor should...

www.sciforums.com

Reason: the posts here are vitriolic personal attacks that are irrelevant to the discussion in the original thread, or responses to those attacks.
---

Once again, you have shown that you struggle to understand that a sentence that ends with the symbol ? is a question. It is not an insinuation.

Are you really that naive, or stupid?

See what I did there? I asked a question (note the '?') but it also insinuates that you are being naive and/or stupid - as the example itself evidences.

Being framed as a question doesn't preclude there being an insinuation.

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

Brownie points for noticing that most rules have exceptions. I'm sure that neither parmalee nor any other reader would have realised if you had not been here to give a specific example.

I'm sure I would have remained entirely oblivious to the loophole, too, had you not kindly stepped in to correct my error.

Thanks, Sarkus! It's good to know you're always ready and waiting for an opportunity to lend your particular expertise in these matters, at the most appropriate times.

 

[Sarkus]

So you accept that what you wrote was wrong? You accept that such exceptions exist, yet couldn't be bothered to actually address whether or not your question to parmalee was similarly such an exception? So, in essence, your bashing of parmalee on this matter is just irrelevant, as it doesn't actually address the matter, and is just an excuse to bash parmalee? Got it. Thanks.

 

[James R]

So you accept that what you wrote was wrong?

I accept that what I wrote was incomplete, of course.

You accept that such exceptions exist, yet couldn't be bothered to actually address whether or not your question to parmalee was similarly such an exception?

I did address it. I very clearly posted that parmalee had made the mistake of assuming my post was an insinuation rather than a question.

Did you miss that? No problem.

More generally, the fact that I didn't point out obvious exceptions, like you felt you had to, was that I assumed that parmalee - not to mention people such as yourself - would be sufficiently on the ball not to require me to spell out everything in excruciating detail, as if talking to a child. And I was right about you, at least. I guess that you, on the other hand, assumed that parmalee and/or myself would need your help. Maybe you thought you were smarter than one or both of us. Or maybe you just couldn't help yourself with that urge towards pedantry that you have.

So, in essence, your bashing of parmalee on this matter is just irrelevant...

My "bashing" of parmalee? My my. You really have missed quite a lot. Try going back through the recent posts. See if you can work out who has been trying to "bash" whom. Because, once again, you seem to have barked yourself up the wrong tree, and you've chosen to stick your nose into something you clearly don't understand.

Why aren't you at all concerned about parmalee's "bashing" post #330, for instance? Not a peep from you after he posted that clanger of an insult-fest.

Run along now, Sarkus. That is, unless you have something you want to say that's on topic.

 

[Sarkus]

James R, if you don't write what you mean, or mean what you write, as when trying to dismiss a complaint by referencing a rule without addressing whether one is looking at an exception to it or not, then you're going to be of little relevance to people.
Similarly, if you think, as a moderator, it is okay to bash someone if you feel they have bashed you, then might I suggest that you're not setting a good example. And furthermore, bashing someone is not an excuse for your writing something in the absolute when you know exceptions exist and when the issue is whether it is an exception or not.

As for why I didn't respond to what Parmalee wrote in #330, that's for you and him to sort out, and is really just an "opinion piece". What you asserted was obviously factually incorrect and warranted correction.

Simples, really.

Or don't you want your obvious errors corrected?

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

You're still going? No surprises, there. You just can't help yourself, can you?

James R, if you don't write what you mean, or mean what you write...

That doesn't apply to me, very much, unless I'm making a joke. And I tend to try to flag jokes, most of the time, because of Poe's law. Not that it necessarily helps, with some people.

... as when trying to dismiss a complaint...

Whose complaint did I dismiss? Did somebody make a complaint? Do you mean you? I responded to your complaint in far more detail than it deserves.

... by referencing a rule without addressing whether one is looking at an exception to it or not, then you're going to be of little relevance to people.

Your petty and pedantic ways are of little relevance to me. I know you can't help yourself, so I forgive you.

Similarly, if you think, as a moderator, it is okay to bash someone if you feel they have bashed you...

Well, "bash" is an emotive word, isn't it? I think it is part of a moderator's job to call people on their bullshit and on their sub-par behaviour, to some extent - especially when it breaches the site standards that the moderator is supposed to encourage members to abide by. (After all, they agreed to do so when they signed up.) It turns out that some people have fragile egos and try to portray that sort of thing as "bashing", instead of taking personal responsibility for their own actions. Surprisingly many, on internet forums and social media, it turns out. It's because they feel they can get away with it on the internet, most of the time, due to the "anonymity" and all that.

On the other hand, I haven't taken any steps in my official capacity as a moderator of this forum to sanction parmalee (if that's who you're referring to) for his sub-par behaviour. I have merely called it what it is. As a personal favour in the hope that he can improve in future. Just as I have done with you in the past.

And furthermore, bashing someone is not an excuse for your writing something in the absolute when you know exceptions exist and when the issue is whether it is an exception or not.

Clearly you missed the part where I talked about assuming that you and parmalee are intelligent adults.

If you'd rather I treat you like a child, just let me know. In future interactions with you (if there are any), I can spell things out in much more detail, so you don't get so confused. On the other hand, bear in mind that I'm not your nanny.

As for why I didn't respond to what Parmalee wrote in #330, that's for you and him to sort out, and is really just an "opinion piece". What you asserted was obviously factually incorrect and warranted correction.

So you're saying that pamalee's little rant was devoid of facts are you? Therefore it doesn't warrant any fact checking and it doesn't need any correction if what he said isn't actually about any facts. You miss a lot, Sarkus. But when it comes to unimportant nit-picking, you're the go-to man. Especially if it gives you to the opportunity to join in some "bashing" that somebody else started.

You just can't resist the opportunity to stick your nose in, can you?

Simples, really.

You sound like an insurance company advertisement. Probably, you won't understand this reference, but every time you write that kind of thing I picture you as a Meerkat. (Don't worry yourself. It's an Australian thing. But it does make me smile.)

Or don't you want your obvious errors corrected?

Thanks for your kind offer, Sarkus. But I will decline. I don't want you to correct my "errors".

There. That's a load off your shoulders.

 

[Sarkus]

You're still going? No surprises, there. You just can't help yourself, can you?

Says the person who replies with ever-longer responses. I mean, you could just stop, but you don’t.

That doesn't apply to me, very much, unless I'm making a joke.

Unfortunately it does, more often than you appear to realise.

Whose complaint did I dismiss? Did somebody make a complaint? Do you mean you?

No, I don’t mean me. I mean the complaint you dismissed. See, you can’t seem to understand what you yourself have written, even just a few posts previously. :shrug:

Your petty and pedantic ways are of little relevance to me.

If they are “little relevance” to you, why do you spend such an inordinate amount of time responding to them? Baffling.

Well, "bash" is an emotive word, isn't it? I think it is part of a moderator's job to call people on their bullshit and on their sub-par behaviour, to some extent - especially when it breaches the site standards that the moderator is supposed to encourage members to abide by. (After all, they agreed to do so when they signed up.) It turns out that some people have fragile egos and try to portray that sort of thing as "bashing", instead of taking personal responsibility for their own actions. Surprisingly many, on internet forums and social media, it turns out. It's because they feel they can get away with it on the internet, most of the time, due to the "anonymity" and all that.

And when the moderator is doing the “bashing”, it falls on others to call people out on his bullshit and sub-par behaviour. As for egos, yes, some certainly do have fragile egos. I mean, those who go around crying about having their feelings hurt? Awfully fragile egos, right?

On the other hand, I haven't taken any steps in my official capacity as a moderator of this forum to sanction parmalee (if that's who you're referring to) for his sub-par behaviour. I have merely called it what it is. As a personal favour in the hope that he can improve in future. Just as I have done with you in the past.

That's okay. As a personal favour I'm just following your example.

Clearly you missed the part where I talked about assuming that you and parmalee are intelligent adults.

I didn’t miss it. It’s just not a relevant response to what I wrote. Maybe if you addressed what people actually write instead of coming up with such irrelevant drivel?

If you'd rather I treat you like a child, just let me know. In future interactions with you (if there are any), I can spell things out in much more detail, so you don't get so confused. On the other hand, bear in mind that I'm not your nanny.

The only one here who is confused is you: confused about what people actually write, confused about what you actually write (in that you quite often don’t seem to comprehend it). No amount of your denial will change that, alas.

So you're saying that pamalee's little rant was devoid of facts are you? Therefore it doesn't warrant any fact checking and it doesn't need any correction if what he said isn't actually about any facts. You miss a lot, Sarkus. But when it comes to unimportant nit-picking, you're the go-to man. Especially if it gives you to the opportunity to join in some "bashing" that somebody else started.

I’m saying that Parmalee’s post to you is mostly opinion, either directly or based upon, and between you and him. What you wrote about question-marks precluding insinuation was factually incorrect. No opinion needed. Just correction. I mean, you could have accepted the correction and explained why your question had no insinuation - i.e. was not an exception. But you didn't. You instead decided to try to ridicule through sarcasm. You made that choice, that choice not to address the issue raised but to instead attack the person. You made that choice.

You just can't resist the opportunity to stick your nose in, can you?

I merely provided a correction to what you wrote. It needed correction as you were asserting a rule in the absolute to dismiss his complaint. That was dishonest. It needed correction.

The rest of this “conversation” is due to you once again over-reacting.

You sound like an insurance company advertisement. Probably, you won't understand this reference, but every time you write that kind of thing I picture you as a Meerkat. (Don't worry yourself. It's an Australian thing. But it does make me smile.)

Seriously, why do you think people use “simples”? You’re as bad as the Americans thinking there is nothing beyond their borders.

Just so you are aware (not that you couldn't have just looked this up): Compare the Market began as a UK company. The advertisement was created in the UK, and the Australian version, to which you allude, has merely adapted it for their market when it was launched some 6 years later.

Thanks for your kind offer, Sarkus. But I will decline. I don't want you to correct my "errors".

So you’re happy to be the Fox News of this site? Talking shite with no one correcting you?

Well, unfortunately, even they have people who push back against their errors, but it’s nice to know you don’t want to be corrected when you’re wrong. Fragile ego, perhaps?

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

Says the person who replies with ever-longer responses. I mean, you could just stop, but you don’t.

Every other time you and I have been on this merry-go-round, I have been the one who has called a halt. Somebody has to do it, and you certainly have no self control when you're in super-pedant mode, which - let's face it - is 95% of the time.

No, I don’t mean me. I mean the complaint you dismissed.

You don't know whose complaint it was? I see. What did you think you were you going on about, then?

See, you can’t seem to understand what you yourself have written, even just a few posts previously. :shrug:

Well, that makes one of us who can't understand what I've written, at least.

I'm so glad that you understand me, even when I don't understand myself, Sarkus. I'm touched to learn how much you care. All that effort you put into understanding little old me. I'm almost blushing! Almost.

If they are “little relevance” to you, why do you spend such an inordinate amount of time responding to them? Baffling.

Well, you understand me better than I understand myself. Perhaps you can tell me. Or are we both baffled?

And when the moderator is doing the “bashing”, it falls on others to call people out on his bullshit and sub-par behaviour.

And you're just the man for the job. A moral compass when I'm all at sea.

As for egos, yes, some certainly do have fragile egos. I mean, those who go around crying about having their feelings hurt? Awfully fragile egos, right?

No, Sarkus. Wrong. People who cry when their feelings are hurt are what we call normal human beings. See, most people have these things called emotions, Sarkus. I know. It's not your fault. But you should probably avoid making pronouncements about things you clearly don't or can't understand.

That's okay. As a personal favour I'm just following your example.

You really do love me! Aw, shucks, Sarkus. I'm tearing up, and it's not because my feelings are hurt. It is due to your continual kindness towards me.

I didn’t miss it. It’s just not a relevant response to what I wrote.

Yes it is.

The only one here who is confused is you: confused about what people actually write, confused about what you actually write (in that you quite often don’t seem to comprehend it). No amount of your denial will change that, alas.

But you're here to help me out of my confusion, as always, because you're the only one who understands what I have written even when I don't understand it myself.

This is you helping now, right?

I’m saying that Parmalee’s post to you is mostly opinion, either directly or based upon, and between you and him.

Right. Opinion devoid of facts. Like I said. We're on the same page on that one, then. Good.

What you wrote about question-marks precluding insinuation was factually incorrect. No opinion needed. Just correction. I mean, you could have accepted the correction...

I did accept your "correction". In fact, I congratulated you on being so on the ball that you spotted my omission, like any intelligent adult might have.

Do you feel like you haven't been congratulated enough on your astute pedantry and your knack for butting your nose in at the most appropriate times?

... and explained why your question had no insinuation - i.e. was not an exception.

I didn't need to explain it to parmalee. You're both intelligent adults, are you not? Or is it just parmalee?

You instead decided to try to ridicule through sarcasm.

Sarcasm? Moi? I resemble your insinuation!

You made that choice, that choice not to address the issue raised but to instead attack the person. You made that choice.

You too made a choice, Sarkus: the choice to stick your nose in where it wasn't welcome or needed. Not to mention your characteristic tone deafness about where the conversation was at, at the point where you felt it imperative to butt in.

But, hey. What a wise choice you made, again! You've had a chance to express your love for me with your understanding and your generosity of spirit. Well done, you! Give yourself a big pat on the back.

I merely provided a correction to what you wrote. It needed correction as you were asserting a rule in the absolute to dismiss his complaint. That was dishonest. It needed correction.

Probably I didn't understand what I had written. It's a failing of mine, I hear. Still, nobody's perfect. Well, except for you, who is always so right and so appropriate.

The rest of this “conversation” is due to you once again over-reacting.

I probably don't understand what I'm writing. I need you to tell me what impression my words give about my emotions and such. Be sure to always do that, Sarkus. I'd be lost without you hanging around like a bad smell, ready to stick your beak in every time clumsy old me messes up my words.

Seriously, why do you think people use “simples”?

People? I was wondering why you use it. Now I know that you like parroting a particular advertisement, for some reason. Good to know.

You’re as bad as the Americans thinking there is nothing beyond their borders.

No. That's not what happened, there.

Just so you are aware (not that you couldn't have just looked this up): Compare the Market began as a UK company. The advertisement was created in the UK, and the Australian version, to which you allude, has merely adapted it for their market when it was launched some 6 years later.

Congratulations are in order again, Sarkus. You just taught me something I didn't know before. Well done you, again! Double pat on the back.

So you’re happy to be the Fox News of this site? Talking shite with no one correcting you?

No. I've changed my mind, in light of what you have said. I need you to correct me all the time, Sarkus. You're clearly the only one who loves me even when I don't comprehend the things I write.

Please be the one who always correct my shite, O Sarkus! You're the only one I can rely on to always be on hand to stick his nose in when he deems it necessary.

After all, we can't have people making mistakes on the internet, can we? Where we would be if we tolerated that sort of thing? The sky would surely fall!

Frankly, I'm astounded they let me post here at all, given that I just post stuff and don't even understand what I'm saying. Some fool even made me a moderator, of all things! But it's all good. I can always rely on you to put me back on the straight and narrow when I go barking mad, as I so often do with my crazy posts that only you can understand.

...it’s nice to know you don’t want to be corrected when you’re wrong.

Oh, but I DO want to be corrected when I'm wrong. Previously, I thought that I just didn't want to be corrected by pedantic, nit-picky Sarkus who has a chip on his shoulder towards me because of a few previous unfortunate performances he chose to put on. But now I know that, in fact, Sarkus loves me and understands me, even when I don't understand myself.

I've found my hero. You're my hero, Sarkus. My saviour. My guardian against falling into error and infamy. With you by my side, together we can be a force for Truth and Justice and Making ... Lots ... Of ... Very ... Pedantic... Sense... in ... a ... most ... appropriate... and ... not ... at ... all... boring... or ... tedious... or ... socially colour-blind... way.

You'll be my Mary Poppins, Sarkus! The grammar fairy on my shoulder. The Robin to my Batman. The Person who Knows what's Right - and more importantly, the Person Who Always Knows When I am WRONG!

Fragile ego, perhaps?

Not any more. Not with you by my side, Sarkus! With you, I am invincible.

*sings* You lift me up....

 

[Sarkus]

Oh, James R. You're clearly angry and could do with a lie down. Maybe a short break from this site? Your comprehension skills, or lack thereof, are somehow everyone else's fault. Somehow it's just not the done thing to correct people on factual mistakes. That's what you seem to want for this site, by your actions here. As said, maybe a lie down, clear your head, let your ego relax. It's okay, James R: noone will think any worse of you for it.

And still, after all that, you're really being just as irrelevant. Sad, really.

Now, while I do expect to have to scroll through another several pages of waffle, irrelevance, and more ad hominems from you (and please do note who began throwing them in this "conversation"), I'd really rather this be the end of it. Can you manage that?

 

[James R]

Oh, James R. You're clearly angry and could do with a lie down.

No, Sarkus. I'm very grateful to you for all your kind help. I don't know what I'd do without you. Like I said.

Maybe a short break from this site?

Thanks for your kind suggestion, Sarkus. I will take your well-meant advice into consideration.

Your comprehension skills, or lack thereof, are somehow everyone else's fault.

But now I have YOU to help me with my comprehension skills. Half the time, apparently, I don't even understand my own posts. Or so you say. But YOU understand them. Because YOU understand ME.

You're my hero, Sarkus!

Somehow it's just not the done thing to correct people on factual mistakes.

Somehow. Meditate on that, Sarkus. You might have a revelation. You might even think twice before you stick your nose in next time. Anything could happen.

That's what you seem to want for this site, by your actions here.

You're obviously correct, as always, Sarkus. Such a perceptive man, you are.

Yes, what I want for this site is for all factual errors to go uncorrected, all the time.

It's great that we have you, the Wise One, among us to deduce that this is what I want and point it out to the rest of the lesser plebians who come here.

You ARE the Great Interpreter. Able to jump tall buildings in a single bound and extrapolate motives even when they seem utterly bizarre and senseless. You are, truly, a master when it comes to discerning motives, Sarkus. This is just one more reason why I now consider you my hero offsider.

As said, maybe a lie down, clear your head, let your ego relax. It's okay, James R: noone will think any worse of you for it.

Really? I have your permission to lie down and clear my head, do I, O Great Sarkus?

Can you hold the fort while I'm gone? Help to make sure that all factual errors go uncorrected?

And still, after all that, you're really being just as irrelevant. Sad, really.

Oh no, Sarkus. I'm ecstatic that you and I have formed an invincing, inseparable team. I will write stuff that I don't even understand. You will interpret my words for the masses. Knowing me as you do, you will infallibly know exactly what I mean and what I want.

This is a joyous time, for YOU are here.

Now, while I do expect to have to scroll through another several pages of waffle, irrelevance, and more ad hominems from you (and please do note who began throwing them in this "conversation"), I'd really rather this be the end of it. Can you manage that?

I'm always the one who decides when you and I are done, Sarkus. That's how it has always been.

I'm done with you for now. Run along now.